Global Warming and Evolution

[ChordatesLegacy]

Still nothing unusual

 

[TheBear]

This thread opened my eyes to something I never gave much thought to. Evolution deniers are typically climate change deniers as well. It's all part of the same package.

Now where do the Holocaust deniers fit into all this?

 

[thaumaturgy]

"Now most scientists believe anthropogenic global climate change is a very real threat."

Submitted for your approval:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Oh my! 400 scientists! But Inhofe's meeting is not without its own critiques:

HERE for instance.

I note you listed only 19 here who could reasonably be suggested as experts in this field.

Presented for your consideration:

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.(Science Magazine Dec 2004)

emphasis added.

Again, I fail to see the mystery here.

1. We know we are directly responsible for pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

2. There is a direct correlation going back several thousand years between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature:


In the last 650,000 years there has not been this much CO2 in the atmosphere as in the most recent block of time and we know this is in part due to our actions. (remember the isotopic studies mentioned earlier).

While there may be some questions around the feedback relationship between CO2 and temperature, the fact that there is a relationship the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and we are responsible for releasing a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at levels higher than has been seen in the past 600,000 years indicates to me, we might just might be in danger of making a bad decision if we choose to ignore "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" who would seem to disagree with you and your 400 dissenters who sat in front of a Congressional panel.

Sorry, but I'll place my money (and I do) on making responsible changes in my lifestyle. Do I need to do more? Yes! Most assuredly. But we need to start somewhere and hiding from the majority consensus based on the best science and best models available is hardly the most rational thing.

 

[Cabal]

This thread opened my eyes to something I never gave much thought to. Evolution deniers are typically climate change deniers as well. It's all part of the same package.

Now where do the Holocaust deniers fit into all this?

It's the same pattern every time. Constantly criticise the long-proven scientific theory to slow down the inevitable erosion of your position. Exxon Mobil have funded I don't know how many "scientific studies" to disprove CO2-based global warming.

The rationale is the same each time too - start from a conclusion and warp the facts.

Sorry, just read Heat by George Monbiot (awesome, AWESOME book) and I'm really riled up about BS-ery of this kind even more than usual.

Oh well, the comfort is, the same tactics failed for holocaust deniers and smoking-is-harmful deniers. Soon "creation scientists" and global warming deniers will be equally non grata (bad latin, probably). Just need to get the idiots out of the government of the most powerful country in the world first.

 

[TheOutsider]

This thread opened my eyes to something I never gave much thought to. Evolution deniers are typically climate change deniers as well. It's all part of the same package.

You are just now figuring this out? These are people who think that scientific consensus is somehow a bad thing and quoting science fiction writers is a good thing.

Now where do the Holocaust deniers fit into all this?

Forget that. Where do the Loose Change Truthers fit into all this. And what of the Moon Landing Hoaxers and Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theorists?

 

[TheManeki]

This thread opened my eyes to something I never gave much thought to. Evolution deniers are typically climate change deniers as well. It's all part of the same package.

Pretty much. It seems to be one of those "I will ignore anything that conflicts with my beliefs" situations.

That said, some evangelical groups are starting to get concerned about the environment and global warming. Heck, I even saw a commercial the other night featuring Pat Robertson trying to educate people on climate change. That really surprised me.

 

[Cabal]

Pretty much. It seems to be one of those "I will ignore anything that conflicts with my beliefs" situations.

That said, some evangelical groups are starting to get concerned about the environment and global warming. Heck, I even saw a commercial the other night featuring Pat Robertson trying to educate people on climate change. That really surprised me.

You watch, the really venomous fundies will be branding him a heretic soon, if not already.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

My point in this thread is simple--appeal to scientific consensus is irrelevant with regards to creation/evolution. Also, the key differences between YECs like myself and evolutionists is typically not the data that is collected, but how the data is interpreted and what conclusions are drawn.

Then explain the application of evolutionary biology, including common descent, in fields of medical and agricultural research, including in the private sector arena. As it stands, evolutionary biology has real world application, whereas creationism has none.

Until you 'splain that, all this "how the data is interpreted and what conclusions are drawn" blither-blather is just a bunch of smoke.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled global warming debate.

 

[True_Blue]

Then explain the application of evolutionary biology, including common descent, in fields of medical and agricultural research, including in the private sector arena. As it stands, evolutionary biology has real world application, whereas creationism has none.

Until you 'splain that, all this "how the data is interpreted and what conclusions are drawn" blither-blather is just a bunch of smoke.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled global warming debate.

I recently launched a bioenergy business that involves a proprietary microbe to make a proprietary energy molecule. Our business model seeks to maximize the economic value of microevolutionary adaptation within a narrow band without fallaciously assuming that the microbe will adapt beyond its parameters. For example, my company rejected Deng and Coleman's technology to induce cyanobacteria to make ethanol because it became clear that the cyanobacteria would never be able to adapt to ethanol in sufficiently high enough concentrations to allow economic viability. There are very specific limits as to how far a microbe will adapt to an exogenous variable.

Second, at least on the surface, our company aims to use CO2 for energy production. The more restrictions governments place on CO2 emissions, the better my company will do. The greater the global warming hysteria, the more money my company will make. However, my company is under no illusions that governments will truly take global warming seriously in the long run. The Europeans certainly have not so far--verify this by looking at the price of CO2 credits on European market. So my company is assuming that we must be profitable even if the global warming hysteria dies down. The US Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 99 to 0.

I believe it is generally true that YECs generally also reject global warming. Given to manifest flaws in global warming, this is definitely to YECs' credit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I recently launched a bioenergy business that involves a proprietary microbe to make a proprietary energy molecule. Our business model seeks to maximize the economic value of microevolutionary adaptation within a narrow band without fallaciously assuming that the microbe will adapt beyond its parameters. For example, my company rejected Deng and Coleman's technology to induce cyanobacteria to make ethanol because it became clear that the cyanobacteria would never be able to adapt to ethanol in sufficiently high enough concentrations to allow economic viability. There are very specific limits as to how far a microbe will adapt to an exogenous variable.

That's just duckie. But you still didn't explain why evolution, including common descent, has real world application.

Do you need me to spell out some examples for you? Although, I suppose if you're in the biz, you can probably dig up some yourself.

 

[Blayz]

I recently launched a bioenergy business that involves a proprietary microbe to make a proprietary energy molecule. Our business model seeks to maximize the economic value of microevolutionary adaptation within a narrow band without fallaciously assuming that the microbe will adapt beyond its parameters. For example, my company rejected Deng and Coleman's technology to induce cyanobacteria to make ethanol because it became clear that the cyanobacteria would never be able to adapt to ethanol in sufficiently high enough concentrations to allow economic viability. There are very specific limits as to how far a microbe will adapt to an exogenous variable.

Removing the smoke-and-mirrors word substitution (like "microevolutionary"), what you have said here is a exactly what currently evolutionary theory predicts. Your company is using evolutionary science in its work, no matter how much you pencil in new words. The whole anything-can-evolve-anything, canary-from-a-cat stuff is pure crevolutionary nonsense strawman that no-one ever believed.

it's even worth repeating

There are very specific limits as to how far a microbe will adapt to an exogenous variable.

Yep, evolution in action. Well done.

My company does a similar thing, except in reverse. We look to drive viruses into an evolutionary corner they cannot get out of which makes them too unfit to cause disease.

 

[True_Blue]

My company does a similar thing, except in reverse. We look to drive viruses into an evolutionary corner they cannot get out of which makes them too unfit to cause disease.

How does your company expect to reduce disease with this idea and make a profit? Is your company seeking to spread an inert viral strain around to stimulate antibody production in the general population?

I agree wholeheartedly with this principle. I've thought about it, but never heard anyone else describe it. Is it not true that speciation over time does the same thing? For example, white guys like myself have a tough time "adapting" to Hawaii--I'm recuperating from a nasty sunburn right now. An African-American friend of mine will likewise have difficulty adapting to Thule, Greenland when he arrives a few weeks because of Vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight. The descendants of our common ancestor had both white and black genes, and could adapt well to both places. Over time, speciation reduces the adaptability of organisms rather than increases it, for precisely the reason you identify above. This strikes me as compelling evidence against macroevolution--the more time elapses, the greater the speciation and the less adaptable organisms become.

With respect to the evolutionary confines of microbes, a microbe's metabolic process cannot run in reverse. For example, a microbe that eats CO2 and excretes oxygen cannot evolve so that it eats its own waste. It might adapt to eat dissolved organic compounds similar to CO2, but not run its metabolism in reverse. There are other limits to evolutionary adaptability as well.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I am a firm believer in global warming and climatic change. This said, the way scientists or more importantly popular science and journalism portray global warming leaves a lot to be desired.

Most people thing the ice age ended ~10,000 years ago, this is not true we are still in the ice age, but in what is termed an interglacial. Interglacials are by nature unstable and temperature fluctuations are to be expected. During the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries the Earth was experiencing a cold period which by chance ended at the same time accurate temperature measurements were being made. This means that the rise in average temperatures is a product of coming out of this cold period and by CO2 forcing. It is difficult to say how much of this rise is due to anthropogenic (human induced) causes and I have yet to find a climatologist who can answer this question.

All we know with any certainty is that the earth is warming up, but has a way to go before we are near or above what is considered the long term geological average. As far as CO2 goes, it is still extremely low compared to the levels seen through geological time. The image below shows the calculated levels for CO2 over the past 500 million years and it is clear for anyone to see that CO2 levels at present are very low.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Shrinking polar ice caps have had no effect on ocean levels (the Bible says that the oceans are fixed),

Last night I went to a talk given by Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences. He was awarded a medal by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography for science in public service. Those of you who are into Climate Science know his name well and realize the gravitas of what he says.

Indeed sea ice melting doesn't have impact on ocean levels. That's simple physics. But the issue is land ice sheets melting. Dr. Hansen pointed out that this factor is one of the biggies in relation to future models of ocean level rise. The IPCC report apparently didn't fully factor in the various forcings' accelerating effects on continental ice sheet loss, which will cause a much larger increase in sea level than some earlier models predicted.

More CO2 would be an enormous blessing for the ecosystem because it would provide far more carbon for plants to feed on, providing more food for animals.

The last time there may have been the forecasted extreme temperatures in effect on earth was possibly about 50 million years ago. Humans did not exist.

The point being, that indeed life can exist in a variety of environments. Just maybe not human life as we know it. Indeed the response time for biota to recover from climactic change is on the order of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, and we are in the process of making drastic changes in a century or less. That means there will be initial massives shocks to the ecosystems. Massive extinctions are no stranger to the earth's history. And of course we will likely be among them in the next major climactic shift.

Interestingly enough, right now, according the calculations of the various forcing functions, human impact in the form of greenhouse gas emissions far and away outweigh all the other forcings.

One person in the audience last night asked if there was some way that planetary axis perterbations (as have been tied to other climactic shifts in earth's history) could offset anthropogenic warming and from what I gathered from Hansens response was essentiall "No". Right now we are such a powerful climate change forcing function that we outweigh the collected effect of the gravitational purterbation of Jupiter and Saturn on earth.

We do, also, pump lots of particulates in the air, which apparently can have a cooling effect. But that's its own problem in its own right.

Eventually, all the excess CO2 will be taken up by plants and photosynthetic microbes.

Hansen pointed out last night that the curve for the "decay" of CO2 in the atmosphere initially drops off quite rapidly, but indeed only to about half within a relatively reasonable time. Actually to remove most of the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, even down to, if I recall, about 15% of the original "dosage" takes about 1000 years. It is indeed "eventually", but in that time, we will have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere and while you might have some life forms that can utilize it, we and many others will have our ecosystems destroyed utterly.

Here's an interesting graph of the decay curve of CO2 in the atmosphere:

(SOURCE)
(Note how it becomes very hard to drop much once it hits about 30% of its original concentration from a given starting amount).

Indeed some think it may take a 1000 years or more to cycle out a given "dose" of CO2 from the atmosphere.

One other thing of interest is the cannard that some like to bring up that there hasn't been an increase in global average temp since 1998 or so. In actuality this "common knoledge" is incorrect. If I am recalling correctly in 1998 the global average temp jumped up so high it was 3 standard deviations from the best fit line, so indeed, statistically the line is still continuing to climb.

Remember the data points scattered around this best fit-line do account for a "confidence" interval around the fit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The descendants of our common ancestor had both white and black genes, and could adapt well to both places.

*facepalm*

You guys just make this up as you go along, don't you?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain why evolution, including common descent (yes, common descent between humans and other species) has real-world application. And why creationism has none.

 

[Gawron]

“Evolution deniers are typically climate change deniers as well. It's all part of the same package.”

As the response of those who ‘support’ the climate change hysteria and all things evolutionary. Denigrate the opposition, claim any scientist who presents alternative theories as non reputable scientist practicing junk and/or pseudo-science, declare intellectual superiority, dismiss with contempt. The play book is thin and always the same.

“Oh my! 400 scientists!”

Yes, 400 scientist, as opposed to the 52 who participated in the IPCC summary. But I know, they are all unqualified to say anything.

“We know we are directly responsible for pumping a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.”

Yes, but Carbon Dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is. CO2 accounts for 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere, accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, and its ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Quote:

“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

“As far as CO2 goes, it is still extremely low compared to the levels seen through geological time.”

Compared to the four most recent Pleistocene interglacials, the modern interglacial differs in three very significant ways:

1. It is slightly cooler now than at the peaks of the four previous interglacials.
2. The modern warm period appears to have formed a “plateau” of stable, warm temperatures over a rather long time period; rather than the sharp “peaks” of warm temperatures over very brief time periods.
3. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations of the modern warm period prior to mankind’s industrialization were about 280 ppm. Since the mid-19th century, CO2 levels have risen to about 380 ppm…about 100 ppm higher than any of the four previous interglacials – yet the Earth has remained cooler than all four of those interglacials.

The only reasonable conclusion that any competent earth or atmospheric scientist could draw from the actual data is that CO2 does not drive temperature change. The Pleistocene correlations clearly show that the temperature changes throughout the cycles of glaciation may have caused atmospheric CO2 concentrations to cycle within a range of 190 ppm to 280 ppm. Since the CO2 changes lagged behind the temperature changes, they could not have caused the temperature changes. Since the end of the last glacial episode, about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has warmed and cooled in a cyclical pattern. There is nothing abnormal about the warming of the 20th century when compared to that cycle. The Earth has not gotten any warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period; nor has it warmed any faster than it did then. If atmospheric CO2 was a driving factor in climate change, the Earth would be warmer now than it was the prior post-Pleistocene warm periods and it would warmer than it was in the previous Pleistocene interglacials. However, the Earth is no warmer today than it was in any of the previous warm periods over the past 400,000 years.

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever caused global warming. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing modern climate changes. There are only computer models that are predicting that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause global warming. The recent history of these models shows that they have consistently overestimated how much the Earth would warm. Here I had a diagram and chart to illustrate, but I am not yet allowed to post them.

The models have not only been wrong; but the modelers have intentionally misrepresented the historical temperature data in an effort to make their models look less wrong. They have also used flawed (or fraudulent) statistical methods to make the warming of the 20th century appear to be anomalous.

 

[Gawron]

Ok, it did post the graph. So, lets try this one from the Woods Hole, which sums it up quite well:

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes, 400 scientist, as opposed to the 52 who participated in the IPCC summary. But I know, they are all unqualified to say anything.

Not all of them, just quite a few.

Submitted for your approval:

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?(SOURCE)

emphasis added.

Yes, but Carbon Dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is. CO2 accounts for 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere, accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, and its ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Who cares about how "little" CO2 is in the atmosphere? Does everything in nature scale with how big it seems to you? Sorry to point this out, but if I provided you with a couple hundred ppm of a highly toxic poison, I bet you'd see a difference.

“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate.

Really? What about the massive loss of ice in Greenland? The measurable increase in global temperatures?

Do you want to wait until it's too late? Or until a couple million people living near the continental margins are displaced? Or will you want to wait until the crop-growing regions have moved a full 10 degrees latitude north? Because they are currently moving:

Using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Arbor Day map indicates that many bands of the country are a full zone warmer, and a few spots are two zones warmer, than they were in 1990, when the map was last updated.(SOURCE)

So maybe right now the problems aren't all that bad, but the whole point of the discussion is to get the word out before it is too late and things DO get worse.

Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

Except, like I said earlier:

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.(Science Magazine Dec 2004)

Maybe I need to re-highlight the emphasis I added earlier...how's this:

"all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements"

Since the CO2 changes lagged behind the temperature changes, they could not have caused the temperature changes.

This is a good point. However it fails to take into account the subtlety that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas whose action in the greenhouse effect is very well understood. As such, while temp increases could definitely have been a forcing function for CO2 increases, no doubt the feedback response could have been significant.

The other important difference between now and the previous global warmings is:

Mankind is directly responsible for releasing sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate that is nearly incomprehensible by previous standards.

If it took a couple million years to sequester all that carbon in those few feet of coal and it is mined and burned over the course of a year or less, imagine how unbalanced that mass balance equation is.

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever caused global warming.

Well, then, you really need to explain this:

I dunno, looks to me like CO2 can absorb IR. So, again, how is CO2 anything but a greenhouse gas?

"...The more opaque the atmosphere, and the higher the emission level of the escaping infrared radiation, the warmer the surface..."(SOURCE)

"We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.(SOURCE)

The models have not only been wrong; but the modelers have intentionally misrepresented the historical temperature data in an effort to make their models look less wrong.

I am so desperately tired of people leveling accusations at scientists. I suggest you deal with the facts on the ground first, then we can talk about who said what when.

They have also used flawed (or fraudulent) statistical methods to make the warming of the 20th century appear to be anomalous.

Wow, and to think, just a few folks like you and a couple people who dragged themselves out to talk to Senator Inohofe, are the only ones who know the TRUTH!

To bad for "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter"who were so badly duped! You should get the next Nierenberg Medal!

Sorry, but I don't see the need to gamble with the only planet we have when the science is so outstandingly firm against this gamble.

If you wish to, then could I please ask you to go do it on some other planet? Thanks!

 

[Gawron]

I might pick Mars, but there is Global Warming there as well. Must be all the SUV's.

 

[True_Blue]

I might pick Mars, but there is Global Warming there as well. Must be all the SUV's.

Kudos to you, Gawron! I saw an article a few months ago about shrinking polar icecaps on Mars, and was shocked that the journalist who reported on it didn't make the connection with global warming.

Check out this article about warming on Mars:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Those of you who believe in global warming have some serious reevaluation to do. Especially those of you who believe global warming because some college professors said so. It's very dangerous to reply on other people as a source of truth. We need to look at the data and evidence for ourselves and be our own judge. [Macro]evolution is just as false as global warming.